Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: Clara calculates in process, takes no contact details or documents, results include assumptions and caveats, and the output is explicitly a preliminary scenario rather than a decision or offer.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately short and avoids filler, covering purpose, calculation context, privacy, and caveats in four sentences. The opening phrase 'The same preliminary analysis' is a vague back-reference, but overall the information is front-loaded and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 12-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description covers privacy and caveats but leaves the entire input contract to the bare schema. It does not help an agent understand which optional fields matter or how province, property type, income, credit, mortgage balances, and requested amount are used.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 12 parameters, and the description does not mention any parameter names, enum values, optionality, or formats. It vaguely signals approximate values and an Ontario residential property, but the schema's province enum includes all Canadian provinces, creating ambiguity, and the remaining inputs are undocumented in both schema and description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool estimates home equity and combined loan-to-value from approximate user-provided property values. It does not name or distinguish itself from the sibling tools, and the phrase 'The same preliminary analysis' has no clear antecedent, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides an implied use case: when someone wants to know their estimated home equity and CLTV. It also warns that this is not an eligibility decision, lender offer, or approval, but it does not route the agent to alternatives such as analyze_mortgage_scenario or get_financing_options, and it gives no explicit exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.